Skip to main content

About your Search

20121129
20121207
STATION
CSPAN 47
LANGUAGE
English 47
Search Results 0 to 46 of about 47 (some duplicates have been removed)
government and freep enterprise movement and connect those policies. >> why has there been a failure to connect? >> i'm not sure there is one reason for it and i haven't had time to think about it why it has happened but it needs to happen. the principles we stand for, free enterprise and limited government is the only way to stabilize and grow our middle class which i hope every american can attain. >> how worried are you about the republican chances -- >> you mean from the voters' perspective. the demographic changes? i don't think any voter in america -- there are voters that are locked into one party or the other but the fastest growing group is people who vote for candidates and not parties and people understand the issues and hopes that they have and offer real and concrete policy situations and real role for government to play in addressing those angst yits they face. we are one election away to do it. we have to recognize what it is and concentrate on doing it. >> how much of a danger to republicans do you think is posed by the changing demographic? >> it's not a danger but i
to change the law. it is a difficult political situation we have. only one government in our history since 1948 has fulfilled a legal term. it was the gold my air -- golda meierboal th government, thanks to the yom kippur wall. our decision in this election to move forward as one big party was the first up towards this political reform. it is impossible to only preach and teach to others. you must give yourself some example of what you're willing to do. it was a small party that started as a liberal party. step after step, they took the power. for real political forms, we need political blocs, and i hope to see it the next knesset this new reality, presidential elections, four or five big parties. >> first of all, thank you again for joining us. i do not think if you ran research in the streets of tel aviv or washington you would find a lot of people who know who rousseau and voltaire are. if we want to wait until the palestinians know who they are, it is going to be a while. so let's put that aside for a second. the $10,000bout gdp. i think it is a lofty idea and a very good idea. let's a
in the federal government is i think invest in research and getting a 500-mile battery for electric cars and getting solar energy that is 1 kilowatt installed and finding a way to capture carbon from coal plants that can be turned into fuel that is commercially sold. we should look at the model of unconventional gas in terms of how our system and federal research and our system of private properties have produced a situation where we have a massive advantage over europe and asia in terms of our natural gas. it creates a better economy and that reduces the debt. >> there is a headline predicting we will be producing more oil than saudi arabia beginning in 2020. this is something almost on imagined 10 years ago. -- unimagined 10 years ago. what is the role of the federal government? >> to do things that encouraged the results. to follow up on the fiscal cliff. you can solve this fiscal problem if you grow our role to position relative to everybody else's. a big problem is the percentage of government spending is more than its should be related to total gdp. if there is an easier for millet
government. of course, the legal profession is crucial to the rule of law anywhere. weifang is correct to use the platform he has to force thousands of chinese students and to try to inspire them. it is important that we remain mindful of the admonition that even though lawyers value liberty, which is about taking away liberty, they are content. lawyers and the legal profession are tied to the status quo. this captures the dilemma of the elite bar today in china. its capacity to advance liberalization is constrained by officials and the party. i cannot tell you how many dozens of chinese lawyers have, with great regret, told me this themselves. honesty compels me to say if i were in their position, i am not sure i would act differently. there is a reason we are honoring he weifang today. he has an unusual degree of courage. weifang is not alone. it is striking to me how much of the impetus for rule of law in china has come not so much from elite professionals, but from a chinese of far more humble and modest stations. if you look at rights of protective lawyers and rave at this -- activists a
governments, spending 42% of the gdp. and we want to make any effort to stop that? or are we discussing to say it has never stopped before? >> i think the earlier social security, not fully implemented. there was no medicare. it has been pretty stable since 1980. it goes up and down with the business cycle, but it is pretty stable. this is the division between the right and left. who will continue to fight about bigger government and smaller government. we will not do it by refusing to pay for the government we have, thinking the economy in the process. that would be a good start, as a backdrop. i want to touch on your question about corporate and individual taxes. the third piece is small businesses. we work out how develop a tax code that is good for competitiveness. you need to think about how those play into it. i think one of the things to keep hearing through messages with different groups of people is, while everybody is aware that the solution is going to take sacrifices from all sides, on spending, on revenues -- the confidence you get for putting the deal in place to actually has tre
's grave for the obvious fact that we believe that the assad government has weapononized chemical and biological agents and put them in a position where they can be used fairly rapidly. as you look back over the 20 months of this conflict, this follows a series of events, one leading to the other which people said could not happen. this began, remember, with peaceful demonstrations. and when assad was unable to control them or suppress, he began to fire on his own people and they began to defend themselves in a very unfair fight which everyone thought we should take sides on the side of freedom and give the freedom fighters the weapons with which they could fight. it happened much too late. and people said, at least he's not using his air force to attack his own people and then he began to attack his own people from the air. now more than 40,000 killed. so when we see the government of assad weaponize chemical and biological agents and put them in bombs, we know this is a leader with no limits and unfortunately he follows his father who proved capable of using weapons against his
. syrians have the right to choose their government, the president, and any individual to run the world. as these ideologies are conflicting right now, that is normal. we see that in egypt. each side tries to extend its power through institutions, through the constitution. i think this is a healthy discussion, especially after 40 years of dictatorship. the people are not used to sharing their opinions and hearing other opinions. they need some time to be able to reconcile all of the different ideologies. at the end, i believe in the syrian people that they will be able to end the assad regime. >> thank you. i would like to debate on the ideologies and the syrian opposition. i will let you go into this issue. can you talking about the role played by the syrian muslim brotherhood within the opposition. the majority of the seats still being that of the muslim brotherhood. the leaders are close -- what is the role played by them? >> i think the united states has to deal with the reality with the rise of muslim brotherhood and the whole region, not only in to nietzsche, egypt. the difference
of the medical are too -- government -- i don't want to -- medicare, keep complaining about -- and because the hospital -- and they never contribute that much noun medicare. and they put all the money they could toward the working -- if you add them up, it's not that much money. host: to the proposal at hand, what are your comments or thoughts about it? caller: i think it should be cut a lot more than what they cut, because environment is what is killing this country and upping medical costs. they should get the sobel security. but i thought that's what the problem is and -- the congress and legislator to stop to fay medical. host: we'll leave it there. you may have seen this picture, it's the president of the united states in the oval office with his foreman opponent, mitt romney. according to some it was a private launch the featured turkey chili and the actual conversation that never happened while two presidential nominees are come paining against each other, they pledge to keep in touch and maybe even work together all that according to what happened behind closed doors, the two men t
. the government didn't think it could distinguish between mortgage interest and other kinds of interest. less interest is deductible now. some of the things are left over from the early days of the tax code. there is no magic about allowing people to deduct mortgage interest and not the interest they pay on their credit cards. some of these things are hard to explain. host: does it incentivize home buying? guest: it does provide some if incentive for buying a home and is a large tax break and gives them an enormous benefits. it mostly provides an incentive for buying a bigger house. it seems to incentivize mcmansions. there is a fair question of whether that is something we should be spending that much money on. host: let's go to ohio, robert is a democrat. caller: yes, my question is this. a question/comment. i have seen all these outbreaks been giving out. supposedly they were created for an incentive for them to hire more people. they were given as four years and years. a majority of these companies did very little in hiring. they say they still need to do this. why should we continue givi
this to a c.e.o. in the crowd. so maybe david, you could take this. what role should the government play in the future of -- your business is transportation, too -- in the transportation business with this? look, we are mired in conversations about a fiscal cliff on the very right now. we're talking about long-term infrastructure build-out, a long-term energy plan. what role should c.e.o.'s have and the federal government have in making sure this gets done? >> this is the perfect opportunity for the federal government and for state governments to work together to achieve a common goal, right? there's plenty of times where, when we run a business, our interests might not coalesce with the interests of either of the parties. as fred said, this is the opportunity that we have never had in this country before, where you can have consumer, the business and the governments all working together to take advantage of this huge resource, if you want to call it saudi america. from a waste management perspective, for us it makes so much sense, because it makes business sense. we get about $1.65 equi
in of government at the federal level. that has nothing to do with this. that would be more on the spending cuts. host: what do you make of the back a plan being reported by the new york times saying if we cannot come to some sort of deal, we should just passed tax cuts for the middle class americans and then fight later on for spending cuts and increasing taxes for the wealthy? caller: the tax cut for the general population is great. that would be good for stimulating the economy. but the big thing is hit there needs to be a balanced plan. we need more revenue and we need less spending at the federal level. what is good for california is not good for virginia and what's good for virginia is not good for maryland. maybe we need to focus on reducing the federal government overview. been there would not be as much spending or taxes needed. then let the states deal with the taxes they need to take care of their citizens. host: robert, milwaukee, democratic caller. caller: i would like to say that the republican party, not all of them, i think it's just the tea party, they are destroying the republi
of them who signed the pledge they want to slink government. i listen to c-span. they're so upset about ben gauzey, which they should be upset about, they don't take into account that the state department has a shoestring budget. people are very upset about the compounding, but the f.d.a. operates on a shoestring budget because they have been shrinking government. host: so anne, do you see room for cut? caller: yes, i see room for budget cuts in the defense department. i'm a senior citizen facing retirement, and i really do believe in some means testing for social security. it's an insurance program. and there are people, you're just like with your health insurance, if you're really lucky and you've done the right things, and you're really healthy, you're not complaining that you've paid for health insurance. and then the people who need it, there's money for them. so it's the same thing. there are many people who have benefited greatly, sometimes from unfairnesses that rich people have bought for themselves and our country. but your people have benefited, and so you know why should the
back to state and local governments. but during an era of fiscal restraint and global warming, it's high time that we start this conversation in earnest. how big do you want your fema to be? how generous your disaster relief payments and how much do you want to pay for it? in today's "new york times" op-ed section, there's an article that points out potential liability for flood insurance alone is $1.25 trillion. second only to the liability for social security. right now we have arguably the worst of both worlds. the federal government responds to disaster usually paying too much for the wrong people to do the wrong things. we provide federal money to put people back in harm's way and sometimes provide infrastructure to make future risky development worse. we often take remedial action, like for theifying beaches, a temporary solution, that can actually accelerate erosion elsewhere, shift storm damage down the coast to another spot or more serious flooding downriver. by giving the illusion of protection, more people locate in dangerous areas and the vicious cycle is repeated with
a divided government. it is up to us to make this divided government work. we have to set aside partisan concerns. how to work together to prepare this economy to get people back on their feet? how do we get this sense of real security and upper mobility for all americans, especially those in need? they are the same. the old ways will not do. we need new thinking and renewed efforts from all americans. it is true that president obama won reelection. i congratulate him on his victory. on january 20, he will face a a fiscal economy and and i mess. you might say he will inherit these problems. [laughter] [applause] he his second term, i hope t will offer fresh ideas. failure will mean for more years of -- four more years we have work to do. -- four more years. we have work to do. serious solutions for serious reforms, we thank him for doing that. [applause] the election did not go our way. the republican party cannot make excuses. we cannot have the next four years on the sidelines. we need to apply our timeless principles to the challenges of the day. our party excels at representing that
, a bloomberg government former members of both parties said negotiators should be able to reach an agreement. in an hour, president obama speaks to ceo's at the business roundtable, followed by news conferences with house speaker john boehner and minority leader nancy pelosi. >> the supreme court will look at what was passed in 2008 by a majority of six-three, i believe, and they will say that is precedent. indiana had a voter i.d. -- >> they decided on the indiana case, it was constitutional for them to establish id they did not say all of that was subsequently -- >> they talked about indiana. you misrepresented what i said. the supreme court is the law of the land. >> when i hear these accusations that black people voter i.d. loss disproportionately affect minorities -- implies to me that somehow we have something missing in our brain. as -- if white americans can get id to vote and go through all the processes to follow the laws, what are you telling black people? that somehow they are not good enough? that is what bothers me about a lot of the rhetoric coming from democrats and the left.
is that it is a government agency that is not as nimble. long-term, if you have 3% down payment, it is one thing to trust that the lenders to use the program will operate according to the guidelines, but does the institution have the bandwidth to change circumstances? even if it were not as severe as 2006, say we go through a period where congress allows downpayment-funded assistance. how able is the fha to set those proper underwriting standards? >> there is no question that the fha any other agency needs to be more organized than what we have today. fhfa it is 80 years old. it has never required taxpayer money. the fact that we have a 1000- year flat and fha has plans for a 100-year flat, it is unfortunate, but it has worked out somewhat well. >> what we should be thinking about is, how do we take advantage of this opportunity to learn how to do the modernization that roberta talked about? we did learn about ko'd during this crisis, when fha wanted to change its standards and eliminate a program that was clearly costing it a significant portion, having an agency which does not have the authority to act
of government, and the president is proposing to grow it more. to spend more. the problem is isn't tax policy, mr. speaker. the problem is spending. you know, mr. speaker, we hear a lot about fairness. i want to talk a little bit about that now. i'm going to switch to tax policy because that's what everybody seems to be obsessed with in the media. i want to make sure we dispel some of the myths of what's going on there. i went to dictionary.com as i'm apt to do, mr. speaker, and printed out what fair is. they said free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice. the first definition. free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice. and two, legitimately thought, pursued, done, or given proper under the rules. fair. but i think we all support fairness. i'm certain that we do, but i'm absolute certain what president obama believes is fair is different from what the people i represent believe is fair. and what i brought here, mr. speaker, is a chart from the joint committee on taxation, that's the group here on capitol hill that is in charge of measuring all the tax policy, it's a nonpartisan group, they just
. speaker? when is america paying its fair share but the federal government is spending too much anyway. middle class america, 46.3%. that's middle class america. that's $35,000 a year you are earning. and your federal government and state government hit you for a combination of 46% of every dime. what incentive is that to go out and work longer and harder? 46%. 57 over here. 57. we all know small businesses create all the jobs in this country. that's why we are so worried about this tax proposal because while this is already 57% over here, mr. speaker, the president wants to raise it another 3 to almost 60%. 60% of every dime earned by family-owned businesses, the president wants to take back to washington, d.c. i'm in favor of a balanced approach. i'm committed to fairness in american society. but, mr. speaker, i ask you, is the problem that taxes are too low or is the problem that spending is too high? what better than class warfare, mr. speaker. we are better than saying we are going to ask the them to bear the burden while the we been fit. -- ben fifment -- benefit. 320 million of
for a government of the many and not government of the money. john larson is up her fifth person -- perfect person in that regard. first, i want to talk about the subject at hand. the president has his pen in hand. he is ready to sign the middle class income tax. a similar bill was introduced into the house at that time. since then, we have been asking republican leadership to bring middle income tax cuts to the floor. the clock is ticking. it is important with tax legislation -- for the tax legislation to happen now. we are calling on the republican leadership in the house to bring this legislation to the floor next week. we believe that not doing that and holding the middle income tax cuts hostage for the tax cuts for the rich will heap mountains mountains of debt on future generations. to that end, if there is no announcement of scheduling of the middle income tax cuts -- which by the way, it has tremendous support and every pub can caucus -- i think we will get 100% vote if they came to the floor. if it is not scheduled, on tuesday we will be introducing a discharge petition. if we can get a c
as a business and less as a government entity. quite inspiring goal and something we have been trying to achieve from this committee. he set some of the bar and, again, back to 2005, reviews of amtrak have called for improvement, again, in its organization and management strategy. in 2010, the i.g. of amtrak released another report and as a result of that 2010 report, in november of 2011 amtrak released their five year strategic plan with corporate goals and organization structure, targets that they intend to use to create more transparency and accountability. and that's what we'll focus a great deal on today is where they are in that process, how they have come along. we'll hear from the head of amtrak, mr. boardman, we'll hear from the inspector general, and we'll also hear from a representative of workers and labor and see how they assess that progress. the plan, the strategic plan that's now under way hopefully we'll hear to be fully implemented by next year, we'll get exact update, again, from mr. boardman and others. the plan that was devised takes amtrak and organizes it into six business
yesterday on c- span2. if any family brand their house all the way the u.s. government ran there's, if we could not print money, we would be in a very bad way. i just think we need to get this deficit under control. those two wars that we have not paid for need to be paid for. you know, it has to be done. if going off the fiscal cliff means that it will be done, so be it. host: other groups are weighing in on these fiscal cliff talks. here is "the new york times" -- in the "financial times" this morning -- roger altman writing today in "the financial times." president obama will be meeting with several governors today at the white house to talk about the fiscal cliff. they will be meeting this morning around 10:00 a.m. eastern time, and then the governors are slated to hold a news conference at around 11:30 a.m. eastern time. go to our website for more details. washington insiders tackle fiscal cliff policy solutions. the group will hold a roundtable discussion today on the importance of reform to address the nation's debt and deficit spending this event takes place this morning around 8:
, the revenues have gone down, the income tax has gone up, and the size of government has gone up. from my standpoint, a value- added tax is just a way to grossly expand the size of the government, and it does not fix our revenue problems. more importantly than that, just the point where i think this argument ends up, the american people would annihilate any party that passed a national sales tax rate. if the democratic party thinks they are in charge now, and they are, and the republican party has done some things to marginalize itself, but if you want to resurrect a republican party, give me a value-added tax. >> let's take the value-added tax off the table for this the session, and i want to turn to donald marron and bring it back to the reality we are today and get your numbers perspective. speaker boehner offered up to the president $800 billion in revenue, all through closing loopholes dealing with deductions, no increase in rates. first of all, on the basic math, can you get to $800 billion over 10 years that way? how would you do it? and more importantly, as i worked my sources on
businesses which provide 67% of the jobs in this country. that may fund the government for a short time. then, what's the plan? stimulus 2.0. because the first stimulus worked so well? that was a disaster as well. we have a $16 trillion deficit, and the president wants to spend more money. are you kidding me? spending is the problem. we don't need more of it. lastly, he wants the power to raise the debt ceiling without congressional approval. the administration cannot issue an edict like a money monarchy. congress, congress, congress is in control of the purse. we have gone wild and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. quigley: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. quigley: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the impact that independent locally owned businesses have in our communities comes as no surprise. the social and environmental outcomes are essentia
to work from some form of tax on the infrastructure that we build. it is the duty of our government to do things for people that they cannot do themselves. the rich can do for themselves. the poor people cannot. i'll hang up and listen. host: let's go to curtis dubay. guest: we keep hearing about infrastructure investment. but the way we do that is federal gaps. the 65 cents of every dollar raised for the federal gas tax actually goes to roads and bridges and highways. the rest of it goes to things that are not supposed to be funded by the attacks. sustainability projects, bike paths, roadside museums. i would much rather see us spending all of the money on infrastructure and then come back in five or 10 years and say, well, maybe then. we are spending the money on infrastructure. it is a weak argument. host: let's go to laura. caller: i have two comments to make. the first is, the bush tax cut entitlements were supposed to be temporary. i remember when they were argued, and as far as i'm concerned, republicans live at that time. they never intended it to be temporary. they intended it to
, alexander hamilton, observe energy is a leading character in good government. the president must lead in a divided government and must not advocate his or her responsibility. president obama has the responsibility to propose a real bipartisan plan to avert the fiscal cliff that can pass both the house and the senate. withdrawing from the recommendations of the simpson- bowles commission, the president could propose a plan that would not only avert the so-called fiscal cliff, but also help us avert the yawning fiscal of this ivory for me -- it this goal -- fiscal abyss. if president obama were to offer such a plan, republicans would act favorably. going over the cliff is unnecessary. as it has been observed in "the wall street journal," the president is boxing in the republicans. he is offering them a deal they cannot accept. first, the president has repeatedly called for a balanced solution involving both revenue and less spending. what is obvious to the most casual observer is that this plan is not a balanced. the fiscal cliff involves nearly four dollars of anticipated revenue from
from the white house was let's fix this problem by incorporating a small businesses and less government intervention to curb the deficit. it has been astronomical. then i heard barack obama say the way we are going to do it is by making more cuts in various ways. he was saying by making more cuts and the only people it is going to hurt is the working class and somewhat of the middle-class. he should mention the fact that out of control spending has a lot to do with the credit card crunch. specifically because of the middle-class. i think if we get those tax cuts centered with them, i do not think the poll would be affected. you have these small companies that are developing, and he is saying have those small companies hire more people and get them involved, but come consumer expenditures. that is partially i think a solution. host: you are calling on the republican line and you think hillary clinton would make a good candidate. would you vote for her in 2016? caller: i think she would be a very vital aspect to the political process. as far as her running for president, 2016 -- god knows
. and so, listen, i understand ideologically why people who believe that they want to shrink government up so small they can drown it in a bathtub may always lead that way, but it's not in the best interest of the american people in my humble opinion. >> i am going to be measured in my response because you all have an obligation to ask questions. but i hope at some point you all who have heard us on this side and the other side of the aisle talking about this will do the math, quite honestly. i can tabulate very quickly for you $3 trillion worth of cuts that have now gone into law that democrats have been there on the tough -- on those tough negotiations. the chairman mentioned $1 trillion that was exacted as a result of the budget control act where the republicans were threatening for the first time have the nation default on its credit if we didn't do something. $1 trillion. that's already taking place, the $1 trillion in cuts. there's another $1.2 trillion that came from the same law, as we know, as the sequester, that also by law will start to take place. that's $2.2 trillion. we talke
options will get the revenue for the government. >> in terms of getting rid of deductions or expanding the base, there's basically three approaches to we can take. one is the overall cap. capping the total amount of deductions or capping the tax value of deductions like maya and marty feld stein have put forth and the advantage to that is politically you're not actually attacking anyone -- any one specific subsidy, you're just saying we're putting a cap on the overall system. a second way is what john podesta mentioned, we are going to change specific items but wohl change them all in the same way. you're not special, we're not picking on you, so we're going to change all deductions to 18% or something like that. the third way which is probably the perfect way from the economic approach is to deal with each of these on an individual bay sess. tax expenditures generally cover an enormous range of activities whether it's ex-cluges or deductions or credits or lower rates, etc. we call them all tax expenditures but it shouldn't hide the underlying heterogeneity. so a package that went afte
the tax code, not increasing tax rates. we can address wasteful government spending that jeopardize an hour commitments in the national defense and protecting our most honorable. we can jump-start our economy by assuring americans that congress and the president can work together to get the job done and deal courageously with the pressing problems of today. when it comes to the fiscal cliff, the president and congress will either fail together or we will succeed together. there is nothing in between. i am confident that we can pass the test and do what is good and right for the american people. >> the president has been talking a lot about taxes lately, and as acpa who practiced for years and a member of ways and means committee, there is no one who likes to talk about tax more than i do. but let's be honest -- talking about taxes is not going to solve the problem that america faces. we have to turn to the spending side of the ledger. furthermore, his tax proposal will kill about 700,000 jobs and do harm to the economy, again, the wrong direction. i think house republicans have set
for us to take what is the very best of government programs, what is the very best in private sector, and what is the very best from entrepreneurialism and innovation in our academic sector to drive down the cost, provide greater access, focus on wellness and individual responsibility and, we have got something that if we were together, becomes the greatest system in the world. in our reach. it is all right before us. it takes a collection of the best thinking and the best ideas from not only both parties, but from all sectors of our economy and our country. that is where we need to focus on. but when you are staring at $750 billion annually, that clearly is the place where you are going to look to cut instead of on the backs of beneficiaries who have paid into an insurance program. >> you talked about how optimistic you are heading out of the meeting, but i have not personally heard any new information that may be optimistic about the chances of a deal. did gene sperling convey to you any particular piece of intimation that was the cause for that optimism? >> yes. if you go back, an
to something for a month or two and have them come back and try to shut down the government like they have in the past. so that's part of the program. >> your position right now if i have it right is that you senate democrats would prefer a stand alone bill raising the top rate dorks i have that right? >> no, there is no stand alone bill. if we do nothing, the rates go up. >> as a matter of settling the fiscal cliff are you saying you do just a rise on the top rates now? >> we are saying extend the tax cuts for middle class. as part of that, of course, we know if we do nothing top rates go up. and we are waiting for the republicans to come forward with something because that's our proposal period. >> at the negotiations it was each side come down with your down payment. we've come down with ours. we're waiting for theirs. >> it's about three weeks we've been waiting. >> sbhite what you have all said today, speaker boehner made clear he thinks the ball is in your court and the president's court. he says democrats haven't depoten serious about spending cuts. where is the disconnect? >> i don
betting your country. anybody who has that attitude, they are really missing the boat. any government representative that does not realize he or she is an american first, instead of a guy raking it in and sticking the tax code which goes only 20% of the american people, then you have a real problem in america. as long as we are in the throne of grover norquist. >> according to press reports, not talking on the phone since saturday while the white house is busy launching a new online. >> back in 1996, president clinton brought me back to negotiate the balanced budget. i met with people who were smart, and nobody believed it could be done and nobody believed we could make progress. some of you were here when it happened. we were having constant meetings with them that not everybody was aware of to advance the ball. i can guarantee you there is no question in my mind the white house is serious about getting something done. i wish the discussions have started earlier. if you are at a corporation and had $7.20 trillion hitting your balance sheet at the end of the year, would you have start
on maintaining good government, and fierce loyalty to his home state, new hampshire, is something we in congress strive to attain. we will miss him, but we will try to live by the standards he set. i remember back when he was chairing the iran-contra hearings in this room. even though we were from different parties, thinking how proud i was that he represented the state of new hampshire. i offer my condolences to the entire rudman family, to his wife, margaret, to children and grandchildren. looking at the celebrated speakers who are here today to remember warren rudman, it is clear just how significant his contributions were to the senate and to this country. i am pleased to introduce my colleague, the other senator from the state of new hampshire, kelly ayotte. [applause] >> i want to thank my colleague, senator shaheen, and i want to thank our distinguished guests who are here. as we gather to celebrate the achievements of a great man, warren rudman, a statesman who carried out the people's work with honesty, integrity, and decency. daniel webster once said, "in the mountains of new hampshire
, they've forgotten they've got a duty to govern. a lot of people are going to suffer -- a lot -- if we go off this cliff. that's why we assumed democrats would have preferred to avoid it. we thought this was the perfect opportunity to do som >> house democratic leaders spoke with reporters in the capital. this is 15 minutes. >> we are back. >> i know that you appreciate that we all have a day job and this is part of it. but we want to make sure that our ranking members that he leaves so effectively to make sure that we get all the members. let's start with you. >> allowing the middle class tax cuts, the debt limit on the table. >> consider that the republicans agree the new income tax will be a victory for the american people. it is becoming more if he does do that. passing the tax cut means the end of holding them hostage. >> i share the leaders view, this ought not to be a bad time. -- about tactics or strategy. it should be aboutthe economy and working americans, 98% pass the bill. they have the assurance that they will not be subjected to an increase in taxes january 1. this will g
the commitment of university. is our hope is strong consideration is made for allocations of government resources to fund programs like the initiative at mercyhurst which assist students not only in achieving a college education, but help them to become productive citizens in our society. as a provider and a father, i strongly feel the need to act now before the task before us becomes insurmountable. thank you again for your time and this opportunity. >> thank you for your testimony. mr. carley i now recognized. >> i would ask for just a little bit of leeway. having only been asked to speak monday morning, i have not had the same ad in time. just a minute or two would be most gracious . boards, i of both my would like to thank all the members of the committee. i bring two concerns, both of which shed light on a population of people on all sides of the spectrum, and on all sides of the many controversies that exist in the autism-world. i hope to be able to stress the negative consequences on us all when so many are in during financial, logistical, and emotional stresses of a magnitude that might s
, and government madison -- socialized medicine, that is what the congress gets. they are socialized medicine. if it is good for the congress and senate, but not the american people? ont: let's move on to gina the line for republicans. the last caller said he was to hear about the bush tax cuts and the jobs. what happened? caller: i do not know where the jobs are, but i can tell you if the tax cuts expire, my husband and i make under $100,000 a year in we will be hit with $4,000 in more taxes a year. what i wanted to say was, i agree with the last two previous callers. obama does not want to compromise. here is a fact for you. if he really wanted to compromise and he really wanted more taxes from the rich, he would talk about cutting out the loopholes. anybody who knows anything about taxes understands that is how the top rich get by with paying no taxes. he is trying to play both sides of the fence here. he is a dictator. i hope all of you democrats who voted him and the, you will end up seeing when his term is over exactly what he is made of. host: rick on the line for independents. caller:
, security, public safety, those are the fundamental obligations of government. and secondly, we live in an increasingly dangerous world with increasing threats against our citizens and targets that are viewed as high profile. for those reasons, mr. speaker and others, i earnestly believe those who serve this country as president should never have to worry about their personal safety. under current law, protection for president obama and president george w. bush will cease after 10 years. both men are young, enjoy good health and have long lives ahead of them postpresidency. this bill proposes to extend that security for the remainder of their lives. there's an unintended anomaly, mr. speaker, that were current law not changed, barbara bush would have more safety than if they were president themselves. the person and the symbol of our presidency is safe and secure for the occuration of their natural lives. with that i would yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, before i yield to the distinguished gentlelady fr
-- more of their money to the federal government without raising the tax rates which we believe will harm our economy. \[inaudible question] >> i think our members understand the seriousness of the situation that our country faces. trillion dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see. $16 trillion of debt on the books. every man, woman and child owing the american government $50,000 and that number is increasing every single year. as a result, our members understand that we've got to solve the problem, and we will. >> the house is going to leave today with two days left in the week -- \[inaudible] >> the house leaving with the fiscal cliff -- >> i will be here and will be available any moment to sit down with the president p to get serious about solving this problem. >> does the conference realize that you don't seem to be negotiating? >> our members believe strongly that raising tax rates will hurt the economy. closing loopholes, especially on those who are wealthy is a better way to raise this revenue than raising rates because raising rates will hurt the very people we are expectin
to fundamentally affect their lives. what is your sense -- from both of you? the government education and foreign-policy background. what the priorities be to fix the problem? >> maybe i will start and passed it to joel. i was also provost of stanford for six years. seeing the product of the educational system give me a perspective on what it is we need to try to achieve in that time. at stamford -- stanford, you see the very best. but if you have low expectations of even the best students, they will live down to them. [applause] i come at this with the belief that the most important thing is that what ever you are teaching them, you have to have very high standards. i am not much for the self- esteem movement. everybody gets the trophy. i am a musician myself and i think the arts are important. but how many of these little performances have you been to where kids are running all over the state and people say isn't that cute? well actually, no it's not, it would better if they practice and know something. my first his high standards, what ever you teach them. secondarily, i do believe the common
debt. sovereign entity states and governments, countries, will have debt to finance the things they cannot pay for out tried. i used to work an invisible bond department of a wall street firm. there were all kinds of bonds, which is debt of cities and countries and states. of course there is the federal debt. as i recall, some people with fiduciary responsibility are only allowed to select investments that have very high ratings. the highest raiders in the world, at one time -- rated in the world, at one time, was the united states of america. and widows and orphans funds will invest in government bonds. host: alma, thank you for your call. we will consider your suggestion. the senate banking, housing and urban affairs committee is about to hold a hearing on the oversight of the fha program. shaun donovan will be testifying. we will be going to that as soon as that hearing begins. i want to show you this article in "the new york times took ." president obama plans to ask congress for about $50 billion for emergency funds to help rebuild the state's the were ravaged by hurricane
are playing in the ongoing negotiations concerning the fiscal cliff. from the government accountability office, they discussed the state of the facilities at guantanamo bay and the factors to be considered in moving detainee's stateside. and what did it did for near east policy, the latest from egypt after president mohammad morsi granted himself hoarse above the court. washington journal, live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies in 1979, brought to you as a public-service by your television provider. >> now secretary of state hillary clinton talks about her recent travels to the middle east to help broker a ceasefire agreement between israel and hamas and the gaza strip. she also, the iranian nuclear threat and criticizes israel's decision to build homes on israeli occupied lands. this is a little over an hour. [applause] >> i am somewhat overwhelmed, but i'm obviously thinking i should sit down. [laughter] i prepared some remarks for tonight, but then i thought maybe we could just watch that video a few more times. [laughter] and then the next tim
section georgia at the government accountability office regarding whether it detainees at quintana mold they can be kept at one of six u.s. detention facilities on the mainland. -- at guantanamo bay and whether they can be kept at one of the six u.s. detention facilities on the mainland. this is in it. we will see you again tomorrow morning. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> coming up today, and look back at the 1990 budget deal followed by the president of the european parliament on the eu and u.s. partnership. later, jon huntsman talks about the role of la in china. -- rule of law in china. >> washington worked his way up. at the urging of one of his brothers he immigrated out west where the lead mine industry was in may paid a. he arrived in a ship, by stagecoach. he arrived on steamboat in this muddy town. he established a lot have been in slowly worked his way up. he became a very successful lawyer and then became involved politically. he ran for congress, search for eight terms. in any profession did
the levers of government and don't accomplish anything as it relates to this. and now we want to turn around and say that this is a flawed bill. at the ent of the day -- at the end of the day this meets the needs of our corporations, of create manager jobs here in america, -- creating more jobs here in america, create manager work. and it rectifies an issue in the video is a program, instofede having families split because someone has a legitimate green card, is a resident here, that he has to be split or she has to be split from their family. the mother of the children or their children are kept from coming to the united states because today the way the program is, they are kept from coming to the united states. so they don't have an opportunity to get a job anyhow. what this does do is rectifies a problem that allows parents to be reunited with their children. i don't know, but that's important to me as a father of three. i would much rather have my family here if i was a resident alien here. i would rather have my family here so i could reach out, touch them, help encourage them, move the
. -- mostly from the department of justice. the third hearing was just government perspectives on the reform. i just do not think it is a fair criticism to say law enforcement has not planted the table. >> thank you. although they may have participated to some extent, these other federal agencies have not been at the table, nor have the very small lobbying groups and the only other group out there but represents the concerns of the arina. we have been told that they will be happy to have discussions with us. this is only taken place within the past three months. >> thank you for being on the "communicators." >> tonight, at the memorial service for a former new hampshire senator warren rubin. -- rudman. keynotehillary clinton's clea address. just a talks about the cease- fire between israel and palestine. that is at 10:10 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> at the end of world war two, we had 12 million men under arms. we had 2005 officers and generals. now we have 1,001.2 million under arms. the ratio was totally out of whack. we almost now have an active role for every ship in the navy. what we
it will undermine democratic governments. it will continue to impede economic growth overseas and it will strengthen us right here in the united states. in other words, this isn't just an economic issue or a health care issue. it's a national security issue. unfortunately, mr. speaker, over the last decade acting in our national security interest has come to mean invading and occupying foreign nations. the iraq war lasted nine years and was responsible for untold human misery. the afghanistan war, now in its 12th year, and it continues to damage our national security interest, instead of enhancing them. it hasn't defeated the taliban, nor has it alleviating crushing poverty or produced a stable democracy in afghanistan. and then there's the cost. some $10 billion a month. that would be a staggering amount of money for a successful policy. for a failed policy, it's downright scandalous, and it is rarely mentioned in all the conversations about so-called deficit crisis and fiscal cliffs. usaid and other civilian arms of government could do a world of good towards solving the aids crisis with a fractio
Search Results 0 to 46 of about 47 (some duplicates have been removed)